I look forward to the day when we have enough non-oil (including safe, efficient nuke) energy to tell them all bub-eye.
We have plenty of oil in the US, or so I’ve read, to take care of the non-energy needs for a while.
Could you advise why it’s a strawman to say that the Saudis favour whipping as a crime for being raped?
Or why hoping for alternatives to oil as a fuel, thus depriving Saudi of their primary source of income, is equivalent to wishing they would all die?
If you’ve been followin the conversation, then you know that Mosier was responding to Tagos who was responding to Paul in Saudi. And what Tagos said to Paul in Saudi was that the Saudi Arabian citizens around the office where he works should be told that whipping women for being raped is bad. And if you’ve been following the conversation, you know that Tagos’s comment didn’t make any sense, since what Paul in Saudi has been saying si taht the Saudi Arabian citizens around the office whre he works think whipping women for being raped is bad.
-FrL-
That’s all great and everything, but how does that help what is going on? I mean, people can feel all good about not supporting a government that condones sharia, but it will still happen, and that’s really sickening to me. Not importing oil isn’t going to stop people from being beaten to death for daring to be a victim. If anything, it may make things worse.
Why yes, I am young and naive and overly idealistic, why do you ask?
What you said would be better characterized as cynical, not idealistic.
-FrL-
Wait a tick… I don’t think she’s young or naive, either!
Well cynical on the one hand I guess - idealistic that perhaps other people might give a shit about what goes on in the Middle East beyond oil.
I’m 26…that’s still young. Right? RIGHT?!
Was the lack of information about this in the Arabic language press because of censorship or because this kind of thing is common? If some wacko judge here did something like this, it would be all over the papers, of course.
OK, I’m no fan at all of Sharia, it’s antiquated and, like most religious legal systems, will stretch as far as you want in the direction of being mean and misogynistic. OTOH, there are a few misconceptions going on that tend to make things seem worse than they actually are.
a) The woman is NOT being lashed because she was raped. The woman is being lashed because she was riding around with a non-related male. I know that seems very weird and amazingly unfair to most Westerners but them’s the rules under Sharia. Had the men broken into her house or snatched her off the street, we wouldn’t be having this debate/pitting and they would very likely have faced the death penalty. Under religious law women are basically fucked, and don’t even get a kiss afterwards. I allowed my wife to travel to the Eastern province with other families occasionally and had to get a certificate authenticated by the Chamber of Commerce. That’s how screwed women are under religious legal systems.
b) She isn’t being, as several people have said, “whipped to death.” As I mentioned a page or so back, there are limits on how hard someone can be hit and AFAIK, no one has been whipped to death in living memory. This is more humiliation and bruising than a serious death threat. They have similar penalties on the books for some traffic violations.
c) Odds are, she won’t be whipped at all. Just like other legal systems, a lot of vicious penalties for things get handed down and later plea-bargained or whatever you want to call it, into something much more reasonable or the whole thing is just dropped. People I know that have run afoul of the law here have been made to do things like signing a document promising not to do it again.
d) Her sentence being increased is due, effectively, to what we would call “Contempt of Court.” And yes, I agree that a court handing out this kind of thing should be held in contempt but again, them’s the rules under Sharia.
Regards
Testy
Here’s some more Happy Fun Sharia Law for everyone, this time from Sudan.
From: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html?cnn=yes
Think about that. People wanting to murder a woman in cold blood because she allowed a class to name a teddy bear the same as the first name of a student in the class.
Nope, nothing wrong there. And who are we to judge from our high, hateful, moral Western horses? :rolleyes:
Oh, well, that makes it all okay!
:rolleyes:
Guinastasia
Why no, that doesn’t fucking “make it all OK.” And a rolleyes right back at ya. Nevertheless, if someone wants to pit something or someone then at least make it accurate and try not to come across as a Goddamn hysteric.
Living where I do, I suspect I have one hell of a lot better reasons to dislike Sharia and I’m one fuck of a lot less tolerant than most of the goody-two-shoes, we’re all enlightened, don’t paint with a broad-brush types on here.
Testy
Una
I wish to Christ they’d train those people before they send them some third-world-shithole like Sudan. There should have been a “get out of Dodge” plan in place and she should have been drilled in it. FWIW, they probably won’t get to kill her but the reasons will be political rather than common sense. The “bearded guys” they’re talking about are what we call “mutawwa” in Saudi and they really believe that crap and think they ought to kill her. Just one more item of the joys of theocracy.
And no, before Guinastasia gets snarky again, that doesn’t “make it all better.”
Regards
Testy
I’m 62.
What we’re doing now, supporting the regime, isn’t helping any. You know why? Because the Saudis have us by the short hairs. Just possibly, if we don’t need their oil so much the tables would turn. Maybe we could actually bring some pressure to bear on them for a change. Maybe not, but I’m not sure it could get much worse.
Should we all feel good about actively supporting a regime that condones this “sharia”? We can feel comfortable with the benefits of that support, can’t we?
Peace,
mangeorge
With no snark intended at all, out of curiosity is a child who names a teddy bear “Muhammad” entirely on their own whim subject to the same punishment? What if it was an adult with a teddy bear (hey, look around the SDMB), and not a child? Or was the woman being punished just because she was “Western?” For that matter, if the name of the Prophet is so sacred, why allow a human being to be named the same?
Aren’t children, up to a certain age, exempt from the laws? I don’t know where I heard that.
The age of reason, I think, like in catholic laws?
Please don’t yell at me. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Muhammad is the most popular name in the world. A healthy percentage of those so named have to be assholes. Yet it is ok to name an asshole Mohammad, but not an innocent toy in which a child takes joy.
Color me confused.
To be fair, only the grievous cases get reported. For every case like this, I bet there are at least ten other Muhammad-teddy-bear incidents that didn’t lead to ignorance-fuelled mindless persecution.
Why? You find it surprising that different religions have differing views about proper use of their deity’s name/picture/depiction?
Oh - I agree that supporting the regime is doing no good. I just don’t see being independent of foreign oil as a solution to human rights abuses. It simply removes us from the picture, is all.